83. Adolf Bartels, The Literary Historian

Anyone who is able to observe themselves just a little knows what the so-called "impartiality" of historical observations is all about. We all make judgments from a personally colored point of view, to which the place and time of our birth and life have brought us. This is most evident when we look at spiritual creations. It would be vain self-deception if we did not want to admit to ourselves that ultimately no two people can be of the same opinion about a painting or a piece of poetry. And the different opinions also flow into our historical judgment. The person who sees Lessing as the great pathfinder of the new literature will describe the historical context in which he places him quite differently; and the person who, with Eugen Dühring, sees him as nothing more than an illusory greatness elevated by "Judaism" will see him quite differently. Those who have this introspection will have a milder view of many a work of intellectual history than those who believe in the fairy tale of "impartiality".

This must be borne in mind when approaching a book that is in many respects characteristic of our current way of writing literary history, Adolf Bartels' "History of German Literature" (Verlag Eduard Avenarius, Leipzig 1901), of which the first volume has so far been published. Adolf Bartels is, it should be said at the outset, a man of spirit and taste. He has so much of both, in fact, that his measure at least entitles him to view the development of German literature from his point of view. But the way in which Bartels expresses his point of view is decidedly repulsive to someone who is self-observant and self-critical. I need only add a single sentence here to justify this feeling. In discussing Goethe, Bartels applies a word of Jacob Burckhardt's to "Faust": "Faust is a true and just myth, that is, a great primeval image in which everyone has to divine his nature and his fate in his own way." To this sentence by the great historian, Mr. Bartels adds: "Yes, and especially if he is a Germanic man". We read something like this again and again in this literary history. Adolf Bartels wants to write his book as a "Germanic man". What he is actually trying to say comes to light if you know how to read between the lines. It does not occur to me to equate Mr. Bartels with the flat party people who invented the "Germanic man" in order to have a word that sounds as good as possible to justify their anti-Semitism. I have too much respect for Bartels' knowledge and taste to fall into the error that would lie in such an equation. But one thing seems certain to me: Bartels' remarks about the "Germanic man" have grown up on similar ground to the nonsensical ramblings of the anti-Semites.

His entire book gains something untrue from the fact that he wants to talk us into believing that the judgments that only Mr. Bartels makes are made from the standpoint of "Germanic man". And what is much worse, this gives his book something dangerous. For the untruth that lies in the fact that he reinterprets his personal opinion as that of someone who feels "Germanic" becomes a danger to himself. He becomes petty and - also from his point of view - unjust. One need not be an unconditional follower of Wilhelm Scherer, one can certainly recognize the errors of this man's view of literature; but one must nevertheless find it petty when Bartels writes on the occasion of his review of the Christ e;pos "Heliand": "On the other hand, Scherer leaves little good in the poetry: to him it is a mere didactic poem... "The Jews are put in the most unfavorable light". One realizes that Scherer's literary history was originally written for the audience of the "Neue Freie Presse"." This sentence by Bartels is only understandable if it is understood in such a way that the audience of the "Neue Freie Presse" is thought to be Jewish. In the end, these are the blossoms of the "Germanic" spirit, that a Marin, who by his scientific seriousness and his spirit is absolutely entitled to a different assessment, is suspected of writing for a certain audience.

It is just as petty when Moses Mendelssohn is characterized with the words: "With Moses Mendelssohn, his "Phaedon", his "Morgenstunden", his "Jerusalem", the Jewish influence on German literature begins, his basically sober deism becomes the creed of wide circles and is still called by Hettner "beseligende (!) Vernunftreligion". It will be necessary to completely rewrite the chapter on Mendelssohn and to shed light on what is specifically Jewish in Moses' nature and work - as a human being, I believe he should not lose too much. - You can see how much Mr. Bartels has to go to great lengths to ensure that the noble humanity, which even he does not dare to deny in Moses Mendelssohn, makes a portrayal possible in which - the Jew loses something.

It goes without saying that Bartels' viewpoint puts Lessing's "Nathan" in a skewed light. He says that it is a tendency poem with the "faults of the tendency poem". How little Mr. Bartels understands himself can be seen from the words he attaches to his reflections on "Nathan". "We no longer doubt for a moment that Christianity as a religion, not merely as a moral doctrine, is decidedly superior to Judaism and Mohammedanism, and in an objective work - and that is what all dramatic works should be - we would rightly demand that the representative of Christianity be placed alongside those of the other two religions as the spiritually highest personality .... .". Mr. Bartels would therefore prefer a Christian tendency poem to Lessing's "Nathan". That is his personal judgment. But he should confess this and not fib that every work of poetry should be "objective". That is narrow-mindedness after all. And this narrow-mindedness, this limited scope of vision, is a major flaw in Bartels' entire book. What can one say about the way this literary scholar tackles Schiller? Mr. Bartels has a lot to say against Schiller. He seems overrated to him. We don't want to argue with Mr. Bartels about that. If he simply said that Schiller is "indispensable as an educator for the people and youth" to this day "and, at a certain stage of education, is still the great poet and man who carries us forward; for the time being, the stage must hold on to him for lack of a complete replacement, but the development of literature has gone beyond him....", there might be much to object to, but it could be discussed seriously. The seriousness ends, however, and the comedy begins when Mr. Bartels becomes "Germanic" with Schiller: "He is the only important dramatist of his tribe, and even if I believe in a law of contrast that imperiously demands the opposite type to the type, i.e. the dramatic man of will to the Iyrian man of feeling, I still find Schiller's drama not corresponding to Swabian poetry, find, here in agreement with numerous other judges, something un-Germanic, even un-Germanic in it. This has also led to the assumption of a Celtic bloodline in Schiller...". So, because Schiller does not quite satisfy the "Germanic" Bartels, Schiller does not have to be a "pure Germanic".

Whoever sees through things from all sides has only a smile for such statements as those of Mr. Bartels. The danger, however, lies in the fact that many who have an - even narrower circle of vision than Bartels must feel "Germanically" at home with his narrow-mindedness. However, I only find anti-Semitic gnats in the book. But I wouldn't be surprised if these gnats were to grow into quite respectable anti-Semitic elephants in many readers. And I don't believe that such an effect would be very unpleasant for Mr. Bartels. His entire work cannot at least save me from this belief.